linguistic puzzlers

[kindkit]

I'm reading John Le Carré's latest, A Delicate Truth, and I'm finding a lot of what look like Americanisms in the text. It's bugging me because I don't know if (a) some language was changed for the American edition, (b) it's just that American expressions increasingly creep into British English, or (c) Le Carré is using them deliberately to make points about his characters.

If the text was Americanized by the US publisher, it's been done very inconsistently. On the one hand, "pants" is used in the American sense (Br.Eng. = trousers); on the other, "fairy lights" is left untranslated.

Have I mentioned that I hate it when British books are Americanized by US publishers? I am not a ten-year-old reading Harry Potter; I'm not going to put the book down in frustration if I encounter an unfamiliar phrase.

Does anyone know if US books are Anglicized/Australianized for those markets? Or is US cultural hegemony strong enough that they're left unchanged even though the reverse isn't true?

Comments

[likeadeuce]

I don't have a good answer, but I remember always being thrown when I saw references to 'soccer' in the Dalziel & Pascoe books. As far as I know, that name for the sport hasn't gained currency in the UK, and furthermore it doesn't even MATTER in most of the casual references, what sport is being referred to. So I just ended up being distracted wondering whether changes had been made. (I'd think anybody who somehow didn't know what 'football' means to a Brit right off the bat would probably realize they'd be unlikely to be watching an American football game on television...)

[hagsrus]

Just a guess, but Dalziel used to be an avid rugby player, so it might have been deliberate.

But I agree the Americanization is infuriating!

[likeadeuce]

Is there a possible confusion between rugby and football? I remember the rugby references, but the soccer ones confused me.

[hagsrus]

Well, there's rugby football (rugger) and association football (soccer) so if there's any question about which game is being discussed the specific term might be used, especially in an area where one is prevalent.

Usually, though, "football" is understood to be association.

I guess getting hold of the British editions for comparison, or asking a British reader to check, is probably the only way to be sure!

[likeadeuce]

Oh, that does make sense, thanks!

Learn something new everyday :)

[tree_and_leaf]

Particularly if he was mocking someone for being posh/ Southern. I can think of reasons why a British character might say 'soccer'. Pants for trousers, however, is definitely an Americanism and not one which has gained any traction - I think most people know what Americans mean by it, but I've never heard anyone use it like that.

[hagsrus]

We've had many English/American discussions in Pros, and somebody from the north of England popped up and said pants for trousers was a local usage, confounding most of us.

It's a word I avoid like the plague these days since it gives me a sort of cross-eyed vision of a simultaneous under and outer garment.

I seem to recall some of Ruth Rendell's/Barbara Vine's books referring to petrol, others to gas, so I suppose some were less molested than others.

[legionseagle]

Soccer is pretty widely used in the bits of the UK I'm familiar with: I mean, if Man U use ""soccer schools" for their youth training programme that's a pretty high penetration rate.

[lilacsigil]

I've never seen US books modified for local audiences, not even when locally re-published by an Australian or British publisher. I remember reading YA books filled with all kinds of words I didn't understand: subways, bodegas, automobiles, hockey (with no qualifier) played on ice, braids, bangs.

[kindkit]

American hegemony it is, then.

Though I also wonder if the Americanization of books is a new thing. I don't remember hearing about it before the Harry Potter books, and I don't remember the English books I read when I was a teenager being Americanized except perhaps in spelling. Not that I would necessarily have noticed either way, though early exposure to British TV as a young teenager (e.g. the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Monty Python, Brideshead Revisited) exposed me to a lot of initially baffling new vocabulary. (What's a dole queue, Trillian? I'm confused!)

[joatamon]

It's already been said by another commenter, I know, but American books aren't anglicized (for British audiences, at least), which I have always liked. This, plus marinating in TV/film and then fic, is how I learned enough American to write America-based fic myself, although it also means I have difficulties Brit-picking other people's stories because it's fuzzied my ability to spot Americanisms. It's also changed my speech patterns. I now use the word 'awesome' unironically.

I've never thought of it as cultural hegemony, I must admit, although you're right. If you mention the Americanisation of Britlit over here, I think the general assumption would be that it's because Americans are stupid/ignorant/insular/pick your offensive stereotype. I remember laughing when I first learned about the American versions of Harry Potter, back in the day.

[joatamon]

Actually (sorry to be spamming your journal) I've given this a little more thought (interesting topic!) and I'm not sure that it's US cultural hegemony at all, unless, say, Australia has cultural hegemony too, because their stuff isn't translated into Anglo-English in the UK either, and actually translated stuff (the Stieg Larsson novels for example) will have British spelling, but won't be anglicized.

So I think this is about the blinkeredness of US publishers and broadcasters and media producers. For whatever reason, they think that the US public can't handle the truth non-Americanized material, which is why so many books (and TV shows and films: Stieg Larsson again) are Americanized. Because apparently Americans can't cope with non-American concepts, or subtitles o_O

Tl;dr - American publishers are patronising?